Re: Richmail

["Ned Freed, Postmaster" <NED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I thought the goal was to define a format that would gain quick acceptance
> and use.  RICHTEXT is limited to a small community with the resources
> to implement small conversion or display programs.  Those using PC-based
> or Office Automation Tools are left with no simple solution.

But removing Richmail does not improve the situation. Using something
that all these PCs collectively support (I suspect this is the empty set
but I'll be delighted to be proved wrong) would improve the situation, but at 
the expense of those people who can implement something simple but not 
something complex. If I want something complex I'll use ODA. I have ODA and
all sorts of converters for it.

> I don't think the richness of RTF is a barrier to this goal.  From what
> I understand of RTF, the syntax is simple.  Therefore, I could easily
> implement a filter which threw away everything but a few key commands
> I can render on my printer or terminal (bold, italics, 1.45 angstrom
> spacing).  Further, I can feed the entire document to my favorite
> word processor and benefit from richness that is available.

Not having seen RTF, I cannot debate this point. Post the spec for RTF. We'll 
then evaluate its suitability.

> Specifying a text format in the RFC is worthwhile for all the reasons
> Nathaniel outlined.  But I think it should be restricted to identifying
> the format, and not defining a new one.

That's fine if you can specify a suitable format. You have not done so.

> Note that the Microsoft RTF format is available somewhere via anonymous
> FTP.  Anyone know where?  

Great! Anyone know?

					Ned